Schenker v. Scott

Schenker v. Scott

The appeal was allowed in part: the Court upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and rejection of contributory negligence because the judge permissibly preferred eyewitness evidence over the expert reconstruction and adequately addressed the agony of collision defence and seatbelt arguments; however the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCCA 203
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Sarah Schenker; Appellant (defendant): Lianne Margaret Scott; Respondent (third Party): Ivy Shackelly
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Motor Vehicle Personal Injury / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Findings of liability and the rejection of contributory negligence were upheld; award for future loss of earning capacity set aside and reduced from $400,000 to $225,000; other awards affirmed.
Legal Topics
Liability, Agony of Collision Defence, Contributory Negligence (seatbelt Defence), Non Pecuniary Damages, Loss of Future Earning Capacity, Expert Opinion and Accident Reconstruction, Assessment of Probabilities and Contingencies
Source Language
english
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Damages Liability Agony of Collision Defence Contributory Negligence (seatbelt Defence) +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Schenker

Respondent (plaintiff)

Lianne Margaret Scott

Appellant (defendant)

Ivy Shackelly

Respondent (third Party)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Motor Vehicle Personal Injury / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Ms. Scott solely at fault for the accident?
  2. 2 Was the agony of collision defence available to Ms. Scott?
  3. 3 Should contributory negligence be found against Ms. Schenker for not wearing a seatbelt?

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part: the Court upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and rejection of contributory negligence because the judge permissibly preferred eyewitness evidence over the expert reconstruction and adequately addressed the agony of collision defence and seatbelt arguments; however the trial judge's $400,000 award for loss of future earning capacity lacked adequate reasoned analysis relating findings of fact to contingencies and economic evidence and was therefore set aside and replaced with $225,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Findings of liability and the rejection of contributory negligence were upheld; award for future loss of earning capacity set aside and reduced from $400,000 to $225,000; other awards affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part and trial award for loss of future earning capacity set aside and substituted with $225000 CAD
  • Appeal dismissed on issues of liability and contributory negligence; trial findings on fault and seatbelt defence upheld